Why India putting the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance is a geostrategic earthquake for Pakistan

In the wake of the horrific Pahalgam terror attack, where Pakistan-backed terrorists massacred 28 civilians, India’s decision to put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance marks a historic departure from decades of strategic restraint. For the first time since the 1960 agreement brokered by the World Bank, India is signaling that the sanctity of the Indus Waters Treaty cannot be divorced from Pakistan’s continuing sponsorship of terrorism. This move is not just a symbolic retaliation—it is a watershed moment in South Asia’s hydro-politics with wide-ranging ramifications for Islamabad.

The Historical Significance of the Treaty

The IWT is often touted as the most successful water-sharing arrangement in history. Signed in 1960 between Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan, it allocated the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan. Despite wars, cross-border skirmishes, and diplomatic ruptures, the treaty endured—almost sacrosanct in its insulation from broader geopolitical tensions.

India’s compliance with the treaty has often been described as an act of good faith, even generosity. Over 80% of the Indus river system’s waters were allotted to Pakistan, and India, despite having upper riparian rights, strictly adhered to the agreement. That generosity has now come under reevaluation.

Why This Move is Hugely Significant

India’s decision to suspend its obligations under the treaty is not simply about water—it is about leverage. For decades, Pakistan has exported terrorism while importing water. With this move, India has finally linked the two, declaring that goodwill is not unconditional.

1. Strategic Shift: It reflects a shift from India’s traditional “reactive posture” to a “proactive doctrine” where strategic assets, like river waters, can be wielded as instruments of statecraft.

2. Legal Recalibration: The abeyance does not constitute a formal withdrawal from the treaty, which would require a longer process under Article XII. Instead, India is signaling that operational cooperation is suspended until Pakistan halts its cross-border adventurism.

3. Escalatory Message: Water is the lifeline of Pakistan’s agriculture and economy. Around 90% of Pakistan’s food production depends on the Indus basin. Disrupting or reducing water flow—even temporarily—hits Pakistan where it hurts most.

4. Precedent Setting: If India can hold Pakistan accountable through the treaty, it establishes a new international precedent: that international agreements cannot be sanctuaries for states supporting terrorism.

How Will This Impact Pakistan?

The consequences for Pakistan could be severe.

• Agricultural Devastation: The western rivers irrigate 80% of Pakistan’s farmland. Any disruption—even through storage, diversion, or delay in projects like Kishanganga or Ratle—could cripple wheat, cotton, and rice production.

• Economic Collapse: The water crisis in Pakistan is already dire. Per capita water availability has dropped from 5,000 cubic meters in 1951 to less than 1,000 today. The World Bank has warned of “absolute water scarcity” by 2025. India’s move could tip the balance.

• Social Unrest: Water scarcity will inflame tensions among provinces, especially Sindh and Balochistan, where allegations of water theft by Punjab are already common. This could further destabilize an already fragile internal political climate.

• Strategic Isolation: Pakistan’s ability to internationalize the Kashmir issue or gain global sympathy as a “victim” of aggression is undercut when it’s seen violating the spirit of peaceful coexistence enshrined in the IWT.

Pakistan’s Legal Options—and Why They Won’t Work

Pakistan is likely to challenge India’s move at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or World Bank, but with little chance of success.

• ICJ Jurisdiction is Limited: Article IX of the IWT provides for a mechanism of neutral experts or arbitration, not direct ICJ intervention. Any ICJ case would require India’s consent—something New Delhi will not provide.

• The World Bank’s Role is Procedural: The World Bank is a facilitator, not a guarantor. Its role is limited to administrative assistance, not enforcement. The recent stalling of Pakistan’s objections to Indian hydropower projects like Kishanganga and Ratle is proof of its limited clout.

• India’s Legal Right to Suspend Cooperation: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows suspension or withdrawal from a treaty if there is “material breach.” Pakistan’s consistent use of terror as state policy could constitute such a breach.

The “China Card”: Why It Won’t Work Either

In desperation, Pakistan may turn to China for help, threatening that if India cuts its water, China may retaliate similarly using the Brahmaputra.

But this too is flawed logic:

1. Different Geography: The Brahmaputra’s hydrology is such that most of its volume comes from rainfall in India, not glacial sources in Tibet. Even if China builds dams upstream, their ability to significantly alter flow is limited.

2. India’s Contingency Planning: India has already invested in early warning systems, dam construction in Arunachal Pradesh, and regional diplomacy with Bangladesh and Bhutan to mitigate risks from upstream manipulation.

3. China’s Own Risks: Weaponizing water would damage China’s global reputation, especially when it’s trying to lead initiatives like the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation. It would also jeopardize its economic interests in India, especially in trade and infrastructure projects.

4. Double-Edged Sword: If China starts using water as a weapon, India could retaliate in forums like the Quad, BIMSTEC, or by strengthening alliances with Taiwan, Japan, or ASEAN.

Water as Leverage, Not War

India’s move does not mean it seeks to deny water to ordinary Pakistanis. It is, instead, a powerful diplomatic message that the sanctity of international treaties cannot coexist with the sanctimony of terror sponsorship.

By putting the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, India has begun to redefine the rules of engagement with a belligerent neighbor. For too long, New Delhi was the only party upholding the treaty in both letter and spirit. That moral high ground, while admirable, has not deterred Pakistan’s military-jihadi complex from exporting death across the LoC.

This moment is historic because it signals that India will no longer allow its generosity to be exploited as weakness. The message is clear: water will no longer flow unconditionally to a nation that bleeds India through terror.

Pakistan’s terror-industrial complex may have expected a diplomatic rebuke or cross-border skirmish. What it did not expect was that India would reach for the tap. And in doing so, India has turned water into its most potent instrument of deterrence.

Let that sink in.